Generating Approximate Solutions to the TTP using a Linear Distance Relaxation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some domestic professional sports leagues, the home stadiums are located in cities connected by a common train line running in one direction. For these instances, we can incorporate this geographical information to determine optimal or nearly-optimal solutions to the n-team Traveling Tournament Problem (TTP), an NP-hard sports scheduling problem whose solution is a double round-robin tournament schedule that minimizes the sum total of distances traveled by all n teams. We introduce the Linear Distance Traveling Tournament Problem (LD-TTP), and solve it for n=4 and n=6, generating the complete set of possible solutions through elementary combinatorial techniques. For larger n, we propose a novel "expander construction" that generates an approximate solution to the LD-TTP. For n congruent to 4 modulo 6, we show that our expander construction produces a feasible double round-robin tournament schedule whose total distance is guaranteed to be no worse than 4/3 times the optimal solution, regardless of where the n teams are located. This 4/3-approximation for the LD-TTP is stronger than the currently best-known ratio of 5/3 + epsilon for the general TTP. We conclude the paper by applying this linear distance relaxation to general (non-linear) n-team TTP instances, where we develop fast approximate solutions by simply "assuming" the n teams lie on a straight line and solving the modified problem. We show that this technique surprisingly generates the distance-optimal tournament on all benchmark sets on 6 teams, as well as close-to-optimal schedules for larger n, even when the teams are located around a circle or positioned in three-dimensional space.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".